Google successfully sued

On February 15 2012 18:39 Night2o1 wrote:
@palak
I understand "accepting" that they have access to this info and use it. That's a fact, but why accept it? We are still in a relatively new age of companies having this type of information and them having this type of access to person information doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Do you have any reservations?

I feel safer with google owning my private information than any government. Not even considering i'm not an american/european citizen.

On February 15 2012 18:39 Night2o1 wrote:
@palak
I understand "accepting" that they have access to this info and use it. That's a fact, but why accept it? We are still in a relatively new age of companies having this type of information and them having this type of access to person information doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Do you have any reservations?

large de-rail...will continue convo past this in pms or aim/msn if u want+ Show Spoiler +

B/c it's unavoidable for all intents and purposes.
Cell phone: Logs all texts, tracks location (in case of iphone tracks location 24/7), if you enable diagnostics on an android or iphone then they log every keystroke.
Internet: Either use tor, vpn, or another program or ur ip will be logged by many sites. I mean even mods on LP have access to our IPs iirc so they could theoretically put each user into the correct city or metro area without any real problem.How close is this to ur address or one you've lived at, type the lon and lat into google maps ( www.ip2location.com )
Email: All companies log all emails, some skim them for ad info.
Banks: log everything money related obviously
Credit Cards: all purchases and history logged and shared
ISPs: Address, internet usage likely monitored (or can be, they just usually don't give a shit)
Anything involving my SSN: Logged by gov't and possibly credit agencies

Are you going to go w/o all that technology in protest? If so are you going to get a shit ton of ppl to follow in order to possibly put any type of actual pressure on any organization? Are they actually all going to change, or would they just keep doing it but less publically? Or are you going to go "well that's lame" and go about your life?

Also we arn't really in a new age of companies having this info, they just have a bit more of it now. Phone companies obviously kept track of all calls, credit agencies always existed, utilities always existed, etc. They have more info now, but not really new info. Plus with everything moving to online storage companies are just going to gain more leverage over ppl who maintain backups online.

I'll challenge you to go 1 week without being able to be tracked, no cell phone use, no internet w/o tor or some other ip hiding service, no credit card use, no emails, no text messaging over aim/msn/gchat...enjoy.

dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium

Palak I do agree with what you said.
As said, I feel bothered by all these data collected, and I try to diversify my use of the internet, using more open source software. I have no problem with my emails logged, though I have some with them being skimmed.

Thing is if you are being quite lazy on the service you use, it leads you to have quite a lot of "abuse of dominant position". It's pretty clear that the dominant position doesn't bring something good for "consumers". For example, now apple can prevent you from using other technologies (flash), or collect data via apps, now they are shitty adds at the beginning of some vids on youtube (google), same with facebook evolving..

I also try to use as much open software as possible, but end up typically just using non open source since I just pirate all my software anyway. I don't think that those examples listed really qualify as abuse. I mean the app collection sure, but everyone does that not just apple. Fb worries me w/ where it may go now that it's becoming publicly traded so ad space may shoot through the roof.
Ads on youtube are there because pre ads google was losing around $1.65 million dollars a day keeping youtube running http://www.internetevolution.com/auth...section_id=715&doc_id=175123&

Apple not using flash was actually due to it wanting open standard on the internet and Steve thinking flash would never come out w/ an actual good phone software (which they didn't). His letter.+ Show Spoiler +

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

I know the reasons why youtube put adds or iphone doesn't use flash. I just underline the fact that people start using those great free services, and become used to it. At this time, company makes evolution to those services, and as people are now quite used to it, they don't switch to others similar services. I'm just stating the fact, not even saying that's wrong.

On February 15 2012 18:39 Night2o1 wrote:
@palak
I understand "accepting" that they have access to this info and use it. That's a fact, but why accept it? We are still in a relatively new age of companies having this type of information and them having this type of access to person information doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Do you have any reservations?

I feel safer with google owning my private information than any government. Not even considering i'm not an american/european citizen.

the problem with google having the information is that it may end up in the hands of the government. Not sure what their track record is in defending people's information against government subpoenas. I know it's been an issue for Twitter and some of the wikileaks people.

Also lol at suing somebody for offering an awesome free service... on the pretense that they might use that for a monopoly in the future. The fuck is this, minority report? We get to charge people for stuff they might do now?

Hopefully google greases a couple politicians palms and the U.S. invades that stupid country France.

On February 16 2012 07:24 kingpowa wrote:
I know the reasons why youtube put adds or iphone doesn't use flash. I just underline the fact that people start using those great free services, and become used to it. At this time, company makes evolution to those services, and as people are now quite used to it, they don't switch to others similar services. I'm just stating the fact, not even saying that's wrong.

Maybe im just bias due to having tech savy friends but ive never had an instance where ppl were so used to one non-unique free service that when the service starting charging they didnt just all bail to another free place. Im talking about actually charging money too like hulu+ does. Also seeing things like netflix stock goin from $300 a share down to $120 a share after they announced price hikes. I see the theory concern but I dont see it in practice. Kinda why this lawsuit is annoying...i would prefer a ruling of "if google becomes a monopoly and charges money then we r saying now they will be charged x" rather then fining them for a possible action.

I understand and favor many of the anti-trust complaints against google but this case seems just as absurd as Apple getting to patent "slide to unlock" and "data tapping"

dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium

On February 15 2012 18:39 Night2o1 wrote:
@palak
I understand "accepting" that they have access to this info and use it. That's a fact, but why accept it? We are still in a relatively new age of companies having this type of information and them having this type of access to person information doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Do you have any reservations?

I feel safer with google owning my private information than any government. Not even considering i'm not an american/european citizen.

the problem with google having the information is that it may end up in the hands of the government. Not sure what their track record is in defending people's information against government subpoenas. I know it's been an issue for Twitter and some of the wikileaks people.

Google has an extremely good track record with ppl privacy rights when in court (would cite if wasnt mobile)

However unless u r planning a massive bombing I highly doubt there is ajything google has which the gov't doesnt already have and just doesnt give a shit about.

dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium

Pretty obvious someone sucked at business and made an awesome scam. If you think google is going to start charging for maps, you don't understand how business works. God damn, that suggestion is just ludicrous.

NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.

On February 15 2012 18:39 Night2o1 wrote:
@palak
I understand "accepting" that they have access to this info and use it. That's a fact, but why accept it? We are still in a relatively new age of companies having this type of information and them having this type of access to person information doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Do you have any reservations?

I feel safer with google owning my private information than any government. Not even considering i'm not an american/european citizen.

the problem with google having the information is that it may end up in the hands of the government. Not sure what their track record is in defending people's information against government subpoenas. I know it's been an issue for Twitter and some of the wikileaks people.

Google has an extremely good track record with ppl privacy rights when in court (would cite if wasnt mobile)

However unless u r planning a massive bombing I highly doubt there is ajything google has which the gov't doesnt already have and just doesnt give a shit about.

Yeah, I'm certain all these big tech giants are huge defenders of their user's privacy as their business depends on it. I remember yahoo going to court against a guy who sued them because he wanted the password to his son's email after he was killed in iraq.

There's also the issue of hackers stealing the data who might not be as protective as google. Was just listening to NPR in the car and they were talking about Chinese hackers and how good they are at pilfering information that not even Google is completely protected from them.

I doubt chinese hackers r gonna give two fucks bout any of my info, long as i have good identity theft protection im comfortable w/ any data they could grab
More realistic version of govt imo+ Show Spoiler +

dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium

Google is finding itself in more trouble in France. They are being sued by an anti-racism organization because sometimes the auto-complete for certain celebrities comes back with "jewish." e.g. "Rupert Mur..." suggests "Rupert Murdoch jewish"